Ministers and government servants were strictly barred from holding posts in BCCI by the Supreme Court which today also put an embargo on individuals from holding dual posts in the Board and state associations.
Agreeing with the submission that "political bigwigs" need to be kept away from the sporting arena, the apex court said the committee headed by retired Chief Justice of India Justice R M Lodha had rightly recommended that holding of office by the ministers and civil servants was not "conducive" to the "health and promotion" of the game.
The three-member panel, also comprising former apex court judges Ashok Bhan and R V Raveendran, had suggested that cricket would be better managed, promoted and developed if politicians and civil servants are made ineligible from holding any post in the state associations or BCCI.
"We see no compelling reason for us to reject the recommendation which disqualifies ministers and public servants from holding offices in state associations or BCCI...
"We do not think that the game flourishes in this country because any minister or civil servant holds office in the state associations or BCCI. We also do not find any basis for the argument that unless the ministers and civil servants are allowed to hold office in the State Association or in the BCCI they will refuse to do what is legitimately due to the game for its development and promotion," a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice F M I Kalifulla said.
The verdict will mean that BCCI President Anurag Thakur (Himachal Pradesh), Secretary Ajay Shirke (Maharashtra), Treasurer Aniruddh Chaudhary (Haryana) and Joint Secretary Amitabh Chaudhary (Jharkhand) will have to forego their positions in their respective state associations to avoid conflict of interest.
The court said it was "unimpressed" with the argument that since ministerial and bureaucratic support and patronage has helped BCCI in running its affairs in the past, they should be allowed to continue.
"Nothing which is not due to the game or is not legitimate needs be done by any minister or civil servant. But we have no manner of doubt that what is legitimately due to the game will not be denied to the game merely because ministers or civil servants do not happen to be office bearers...
"We know that there may be an overwhelming number of ministers and bureaucrats who are passionate about the game and would like to do everything that is legally permissible and reasonably possible within the four corners of the law even without holding any office in the BCCI or the State Associations," the bench said.
The court said the argument that "favours" which BCCI
receives will disappear just because a minister or civil servant is not an office bearer in the state association or BCCI has no "real" basis.
"Whatever the legitimate sporting patronage is required for the game would certainly come from concerned supporters regardless whether they are Ministers, Civil Servants or office bearers. The contention urged on behalf of the BCCI that the restriction placed on the Ministers and Public Servants holding office would, in any manner, damage the cause of the game is, therefore, without any basis," the bench said.
With regard to the recommendation of the committee that those holding office in the state associations shall not be eligible for holding any office in BCCI and vice versa, the court said that there was nothing "irrational" about the view taken by the Lodha panel that individuals should be barred from holding two posts simultaneously.
"The argument that individuals should be eligible to hold two posts one each in the State Association and the BCCI does not stand scrutiny in the light of the reasons given by the Committee which do not, in our opinion, suffer from any perversity to call for our interference," the bench said.
It rejected the submission that administrative experience acquired by individuals in the state associations was useful to the BCCI "which need not be lost by stipulating a disqualification recommended by the Committee".
